9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 408X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ati Devi [1994 (7) TMI 46 - RAJASTHAN High Court] - Decided in favour of assessee - Income Tax Appeal No. 16 Of 2016 & 15 Of 2016 - - - Dated:- 21-1-2016 - TARUN AGARWALA AND VINOD KUMAR MISRA, JJ For the Respondent : None For the Petitioner : Ashok Kumar And Manu Ghildyal ORDER (PER: VINOD KUMAR MISRA, J.) The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kanpur has preferred Appeal No. 16 of 2016 under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the judgement and order dated 20.8.2015 passed in I.T.A. No. 86/LKW/2012 (Assessment Year 2006-07) and Appeal No. 15 of 2016 under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the judgement and order dated 20.8.2015 passed in I.T.A. No. 54/LKW/2012 (Assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bh Chandra Surana (vi) PG: decoded as Pawan Gupta (vii) LKM: decoded as LK. Mukherjee (viii) BNM: decoded as B.N. Mishra (ix) MA: decoded as Mohan Agarwal (x) BK: decoded as Vickery Khanna It transpires that a search and seizure operation under section 132 of Income Tax Act was carried out on 13.3.2006 in the business-cum-commercial premises of the assessee at 15/86, Lathawali Khothi, Civil Lines, Kanpur. During the course of search and seizure operation various books of account, documents and loose papers were found and seized. Notice was issued to the assessee under Section 142 (1). In compliance of the notice, assessee filed return on 11.10.2007 declaring total income as ₹ 39,62,285/- for Asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner of Income Tax, Kanpur dated 21.11.2011 by filing an appeal before learned ITAT, Luknow. Learned ITAT vide its order date 20.8.2015 dismissed the appeal. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, ITAT has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 55,83,300/- made by the Assessing Officer on protective basis on account of coal business carried out by the assessee through the syndicate of Bhutoria Group, without appreciating the fact that the Assessing Officer had given his finding on the basis of seized documents found during the course of search at the premises of Mr. Bhutoria and that on the basis of document PB-20, PB-17, the assessee received an amount of ₹ 55,83,300/-. Learned counsel also s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Syndicate (AOP) as it was the departments stand that such income belong to the syndicate (AOP). ₹ 36 lacs was added in the hands assessee in the assessment year 2005-2006 who was eligible member of the syndicate AOP mainly on protective basis. On perusal of the records, statement recorded during the course of search at Kolkata and also the impugned seized computer sheets, it is seen that the said transactions as embodied in these seized document, actually represent the trading transactions of the syndicate working as a unit and, therefore, the assessment of such income can be done only in the hands of the said syndicate . So addition made on protective basis cannot survive. This view is find support from the case of CIT Vs. Smt Sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
